Telechat Review of draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-11

Request Review of draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2015-12-01
Requested 2015-11-20
Authors Yong Cui, Jiang Dong, Peng Wu, Mingwei Xu, Antti Yla-Jaaski
Draft last updated 2015-11-20
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -11 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -11 by Hui Deng (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -11 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Scott Bradner (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Carlos Pignataro
State Completed
Review review-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-11-intdir-telechat-pignataro-2015-11-20
Reviewed rev. 11 (document currently at 14)
Review completed: 2015-11-20



I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-11. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see


This document defines MIB objects to manage softwire mesh solutions, and targets the Standards Track.

I have a number of comments and concerns with this document, which amount to requesting the ADs to take a closer look:

3.  Terminology

   This document uses terminology from the softwire problem statement

   RFC 4925 [RFC4925] and the softwire mesh framework RFC 5565


CMP: I think terminology from RFC 5512 is also heavily used.

5.1.  The swmSupportedTunnelTable Subtree


   to section 4 of RFC 5512 [RFC5512], current softwire mesh tunnel

   types include IP-IP, GRE and L2TPv3.

CMP: This is true, but at the same time there are now many other “current tunnel types” (which are actually BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types). See

 Specifically the ones introduced by RFC5566 ought to be included.

CMP: This comment also applies to swmSupportedTunnelType

XX. Missing sub-TLVs

CMP: If the Tunnel Type is one which requires encapsulation information (e.g., L2TPv3 Session ID, Cookie, GRE Key, etc.), how is that information managed? I cannot seem to find it in the MIB Module. See Section 4.1 of RFC 5512.

CMP: Similarly, what about Protocol Type and Color (S4.2 and 4.3 of RFC 5512), and IPsec Tunnel Authenticator (RFC 5566)?

CMP: Similarly, what about the Load-Balancing Block values from RFC 5640? Without this, an ECMP-aware L2TPv3 tunnel will be misunderstood.

8.  Security Considerations

   The swmMIB module can be used for configuration of certain objects,

CMP: How is this so, without read-write or read-create?

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

CMP: Curiously, I do not see RFC 5566 or RFC 5640 referenced.

Hope these help!


— Carlos.




 Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail